AN APPEAL REFUSED.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 June 1923, Page 1

AN APPEAL REFUSED.

WEST COAST CASE. CilKlSTCTirnCir, -May 31. An applieution for the riglit to appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court. (Mr .Justice Adams) in an appeal from a judgment of the .Magistrate’s (.'unit at Kiiuiara. in a a action in which Theodore Sanity, mercer, of Ktinitira. and Hicynmutli. was the appellant, ami Charles 0. F. Mor- ! ire. medical practitioner of Welling- | ton. was the respondent, was heard by Mr Ju-tice Adams tins morning. After hearing argument, the right of appeal was not allowed. Ihe case originated in November, 1 ‘J-i- . when Motive obtained judgment in tlie Magistrate’s Court against ,Surety in an action having as its object l!:o recovery oi possession of a .simp o - ctuded by Surety in Grcymoiitii. Sanity was allowed otto month in which to va ate the premises, but he appealc ! against the decision of the Magistrate, and Air Justice Adams heard that appeal at f.Teymoiith ami allowed it. A motion was then Fought forward fur i igiiL to appeal to the C ourt of - peal against Id's Honour's decision in respect of Sanity's appeal by Aim ice. I i s appellant, Alorn e. to-day was represented by A. T. Donnelly. Air .1. .Murdoch, of Hokitika, appeared for the respondent Sanity.

The notice of motion to appeal stated thiit it was pul forward because the difii'-iilt .|iiestio.u of law. and one of great public importance was l'ai-ed. Namely lire ijuestion whether l he; e was or mi - not a right of appeal Irom judgment in actions for tint recovery of possessions of tenements under the Ala r. i.-t rate's Court Act. Tt was further staled tiiat a perusal of the ;upi>riod eases had shown there was a doubt whether or not then vas a right of appeal from the judgment s ol 11, ■: eat tire. 11 was t herotore considered advisable to have a decision of the Court of Appeal on the point. I n itis judgment in the up, eai against tile decision of the Alaci it te. Air dll t i e Adams died l hat the] r■K's'mis oi the Aiagisl rate's ( outt AM. hd d. were 111 til" effect that after 1 eating the appeal, the Supreme Cmtrt mu;, in a eti-e where tin order lias l,i". n made in, the dcliv. ry ol pc.-ccssimi oi any tenement, order re-delivery to made. Addressing i 1 is limmm. to-day, Air D.mtieiK said that tenement cases were i t 'ti: 11I ly occurring in all part:- i.l New Zealand, and were of great iut- ! an tail e to the taaiple of the Dontinmt a- well as to the lamiionl' and tetiaiils. lie ivoogiii.-ed that His ’onottr had given It is judgment in tlte ,i'e. ions ajipeal t nly aider great collide: a turn and alter con.siilt ing with dher judge-, lie Iclt. however, that c must press his a) piicn! ion on lieall' el' the ap| eilant (Aiori, e). Ilis I lrinoilf: 'i'lm Magistrate's deision is only iinal in so far as it

I alfects the uciuiptint. { For the i rspundent, Air Alurtlech I stiluiiiu, d lIn:i the appeal was one j ior indulgon, e mily. It was nut I against li,- Honour's judgment in the j main, hut . nly again-i a pat i of n. His I Ir.mmr : 1 1 pau of a judgment j is slum ii to he w tong, then the whole ; judgment I niK. Air Aliiriioel] further pointed out that Air .In-tire Adams’ jdgiucul was it,,t the iir-t ,i its kind and lie pimietl lo silow that a hr t iudgmeiu wa • emti,l Old mere uapiulanl titan later urns, lie I'lirll i emjdl.-t-i-ed lint ii the a]'-' i pi a I t. en i to the ( ourt of Appeal S r- j ety v. odd ! • f>>.!t to ex|.e , i - e and de- | la-.- and in v, as an indit idual it mini | as again'! a mnltitudiiam- lainll.ud. | \b live had ev. ryliong' " gam ami | s-'areU hail nuthing. The e -ts to j Itini would le great and linoe was a!-o tlie i'| ur-1 ion of d, 'ay. S'W.i wa- .at ] r. -toil pi ret Fully out ol lut“ : - ne-s il' iug in site], in a ],a: lof I Ire.vi.nmiii wit, r.- 1 >■;-i i !<-•- - wot - .ii a-1 nuts. Air |l,'Mindly sid,milted that the w ll !i ei' tlte i, - poet itv parties did let elite- into col id rat it. 'P'v min tiling vva- whether li'ere was all iot|on ant leg;, ] 1111 :■ -i :oli l„ lergi ,-d in giving Ilis (iv a- it oi. lit- .1 i< inour tiid 1 1 1111 ih- ease iad bet n iargu- ...{ in 11 l itinit It. ttinl In- had ron-uit- I ed v. it !t hi- !,rot Iter judges loh re giv- ) lug hi- written dvi-eoi. thus having tit,. ;.dv.image '■] their views on li’e point at issue. There was no doubt tit..i ihe quest ton was a delicate one. e.-pceially u In'ti tin* applit .ai.ioii lot I'm- leave to api'i'iil wits n::t<!c to Ihe judge wile had riii'.-idet'.'d tlie '-me. That must iieecsstifily occur in New Zctdaml at times. ||e tiurelnre tell a natural re! uei tntee in deeliuiitg lo grant leave. Imt f<Vl that he must do S C) . Ilis Honour traversed the AMs governing the case, and pinions given by ntlier Judges, and said llnit lie could no ground tor putting tlie appellant to I'm titer delay and expense and assuming tliai tlie respondent was j pul mi terms, there would be luriherj delay. Tile motion for leave to apical | would ! Ilerei'v : e lie di s m i.-.-:od.